Officer plans to refuse to go to Iraq

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:12 pm

clerkenwell, I'm honestly not sure whether you're yanking my chain, now.

[quote="clerkenwell";p="643634"]If you can't see the conscientious objection here, then you are simply an idiot.[/quote]
Well, thank you for your persuasive argument. It might interest you to learn that there is no conscientious objection when you've volunteered for the job.

I respect his opinion and cannot justify asking him to perform an action that he finds morally reprehensible.

Really? I sure as hell can. He volunteered for it and swore to do it. That alone is pretty much reason enough, though I don't recall a quote from him suggesting that he finds assisting the Iraqi government in establishing and maintaining peace for the Iraqi people to be "morally reprehensible."

I just hope you have the wisdom to discern whether you've actually been asked to perform an actual unconscionable act.
You say "have the wisdom," I hear "share Deacon's personal opinion."

I'm sure I would have an opinion on it. Either way, if that's what you're hearing, then no, you probably won't have the wisdom to discern it.

And while you're up there on your high horse, fully bedecked in your grey wig and gavel, melodramatically accusing Phong of authoritarianism and preaching piously on integrity and strength, remember that, in this person's case, your precious integrity and strength are exactly what is needed to fulfill his orders, the duty he swore an oath to uphold.
Only if he's borrowing your moral compass, Deacon. Only then.

*foreheadsmack*

No, clerk. No. My statement applies especially if he honestly does not have any sense of morality and duty, at which time he will need integrity and strength to fulfill his orders.

Arminius · Post by **Arminius** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:08 am

[quote="Deacon";p="643594"][quote="Phong";p="643323"]If we fail then it will be remembered as the biggest debacle in History.[/quote]
Minor quibble: it's whether the Iraqi people fail. We succeeded in bringing down a viscious dictator with war crimes and atrocities on civilians that make my toes curl to think of them.[/quote]
Everybody knew that bringing down Saddam would be the easiest part in the democratic process. What you do AFTER is the most important. For the moment, nobody can tell if it's a failure or not. Do you know why George Bush didn't remove Saddam in 1991? Because he knew that removing him would cause a civil war. And a civil war sucks when it happened in a country where 40% of its oil production is directly shipped to America. See, in 2003, the first things the US forces secured were the oil wells. Reagan let Saddam gas the Kurds in 1988 for the same reason.

[quote="Deacon";p="643594"]If Iraq becomes a prosperous, quasi-secular democracy in a land on which most people have given up all hope, then it will be a success. If it does not, it will only be half a success.[/quote]
If it does not, the country will turn into a pro Iranian islamist republic or shattered in 3 or more states bellicose toward each other. It's not even a half success.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:25 am

[quote="Arminius";p="643715"]And a civil war sucks when it happened in a country where 40% of its oil production is directly shipped to America.[/quote]
America has been receiving 40% of Saddam's oil production leading up to 2003's ousting?

[quote="Deacon";p="643594"]If it does not, the country will turn into a pro Iranian islamist republic or shattered in 3 or more states bellicose toward each other. It's not even a half success.[/quote]
If people are ruling themselves and are not in terror of being kidnapped and tortured to death, then yeah, actually, that's something, even if it's not the utopian ideal you demand.

Arminius · Post by **Arminius** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:01 am

[quote="Deacon";p="643721"]America has been receiving 40% of Saddam's oil production leading up to 2003's ousting?[/quote]
It's a French source. I'm not sure we can trust them ya know.

IFRI click here wrote:As far as Iraqi oil exports are concerned, France ranks fourth with 8% of total Iraqi oil exports, far behind the United States, by far Baghdad’s biggest client, with 40% of Iraqi oil exports.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:29 am

Unfortunately, that's only referring to the UN's Oil For Food program and fails to deliver any actual numbers (gallons/day, etc). And do I recall correctly that we caught both France and Russia's hand in the cookie jar when we invaded?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:41 am

I however, fully support his right to get himself in jail, and jobless for the rest of his life. Who hires people with BCDs? Nobody.

Well, I would, if he could demonstrate he had a diploma and then had it stripped from him for actions other than demonstrating gross incompetence in his field, as it would still be obvious that he had the education a BCD represents. They'd still have graduated from wherever with a degree in whatever. Anything beyond that is paperwork.

clerkenwell · Post by **clerkenwell** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:45 am

[quote="Deacon";p="643647"]clerkenwell, I'm honestly not sure whether you're yanking my chain, now.

[quote="clerkenwell";p="643634"]If you can't see the conscientious objection here, then you are simply an idiot.[/quote]
Well, thank you for your persuasive argument. It might interest you to learn that there is no conscientious objection when you've volunteered for the job.[/quote]

That is quite simply asinine. To expect someone to maintian a constancy of opinion in a dramaticallye changing world is naive and ridiculous. Think about that next time you face a situation where something that seemed like a great idea at the time ends up going down the shitter and you simply want to wash your hands of it and move on.

I respect his opinion and cannot justify asking him to perform an action that he finds morally reprehensible.
Really? I sure as hell can. He volunteered for it and swore to do it. That alone is pretty much reason enough, though I don't recall a quote from him suggesting that he finds assisting the Iraqi government in establishing and maintaining peace for the Iraqi people to be "morally reprehensible."

That is how you see the current state of affairs in Iraq. His view is far different. Both views have validity, and personally, I would generally tend to agree with your view of our current role in Iraq. However, none of us can say with certainty what exactly the effect of the U.S. military in Iraq is, whether it results in saving or ending more innocent lives. If anything, we must assume that the Lt. has a better grasp as a commissioned officer of the armed forces and, supposedly, has access to better and more information about the American presence in Iraq.

I just hope you have the wisdom to discern whether you've actually been asked to perform an actual unconscionable act.
You say "have the wisdom," I hear "share Deacon's personal opinion."
I'm sure I would have an opinion on it. Either way, if that's what you're hearing, then no, you probably won't have the wisdom to discern it.

This is a point we will simply never agree on. You are simply to much an objectivist. I am simply too much a subjectivist. Argument is pointless.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:46 am

So the kind of person they are (I guess you'd say their "character") is trivial? As long as they've sat through some classes, all else is irrelevant other than some random "demonstrating gross incompetence" (can you really have a degree revoked for that??), then no biggie?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:49 am

Well, the question was "who would hire someone without a BCD?", which made his diploma the topic at hand, and so I was pointing out that that particular element he was asking about should be considered irrelevant (in the case of someone being punitively stripped of their degree) to any intelligent and reasonable employer.

Of course, there's a dearth of reasonable and intelligent people in the world.

His character is another matter entirely, and you'd be taking for granted of course that all prospective employers would consider this man's actions to be a black mark against him. Though, in that case, too ... were I to run a business, he'd always have a job that he had the skills and work ethic for, with me.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:02 am

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="643785"]Well, the question was "who would hire someone without a BCD?", which made his diploma the topic at hand, and so I was pointing out that that particular element he was asking about should be considered irrelevant (in the case of someone being punitively stripped of their degree) to any intelligent and reasonable employer.[/quote]
Actually, his question was, "Who hires people with BCDs?" BCD stands for Bad Conduct Discharge. It's some what dishonorable. Based on that paragraph I'm guessing you got a dishonorable discharge confused for a college diploma. Regardless, I'm not sure how punitive stripping of a degree should be irrelevant to a prospective employer. Sounds like it'd be pretty damn relevant. You find me an employer who looks at an applicant who has no degree because he fucked up so very thoroughly that his degree was stripped from him, and the employer deems it irrelevant and inconsequential, and I'll show you an employer who's neither intelligent nor reasonable, and who will probably not be in a position to hire people very much longer, due to either going bankrupt or being fired himself.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:05 am

Oh. I didn't know the acronym so I plugged it in and got Board Certified Degree. So yeah, I figured it was a fancy term for a diploma. That's what I get for leaping to conclusions, then. Oops. :/

As for it being relevant, well, in terms of "does he know his stuff?" ... no. In terms of "what was the punishment for?", yeah, it's relevant, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that all prospective employers would agree with the basis for his discharge, and by extention, the blackness of the Discharge's mark.

Phong · Post by **Phong** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:11 pm

It doesn't really matter if they agree with the reasoning behind such a punishment or not, with that kind of record he would very likely never make it far enough into the screening process for the employer ever to find out WHY he was given a bad conduct discharge, and stripped of his degree. HR would toss his resume in the gargbage.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:04 pm

No, clerkenwell, that fact that he would be break his oath if he does not report for duty is not up for debate.

There are and have been allowances for objectors made in the past, yet this "officer" has made no attempt (documented attempt) to recieve such status. He simply plans not to go, and even made his intentions public, I believe in shallow attempt to save his ass from the penalties of his decisions.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe that the Iraqi people do not want the US and the other nation's military presence. It has been asked for by the elected government, and by every source I can find besides those folks running around bitching about the 'occupation'. What is morally objectionable when there is a formal and official request from the recognized government?

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:09 pm

The very same government you put into power you mean?

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:11 pm

Yes, I personally made all Iraqis vote for the guy.

Oh wait, the US made all Iraqis vote for the guy.

Oh wait, that was a stupid thing you said.

Real Life Forums

Officer plans to refuse to go to Iraq

Re: Officer plans to refuse to go to Iraq

Who is online